Freedom of religion at work: what may an employer restrict in the Netherlands?

In the Netherlands your employer may not treat you less favourably because of your religion or belief. There is no statutory right to a prayer break, a prayer room or leave on a religious holiday, but your employer must assess every request individually and give reasons for a refusal. A neutral-looking rule that hits one religious group harder is only lawful if it serves a legitimate aim and is appropriate and necessary.

Freedom of religion at work is protected by Article 6 of the Dutch Constitution (Grondwet), Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Equal Treatment Act (Algemene wet gelijke behandeling, AWGB). Where an employer cannot show its reasoning, the legal risk lies with the employer. Questions about praying during working hours, fasting during Ramadan, headscarves and refusing to shake hands reach the Dutch courts every year. The outcome almost always turns on the quality of the employer’s assessment, not on the religious practice itself.

Below, our employment law team explains what the rules require, how the burden of proof works, and what employers and employees can do when a conflict arises.

What does freedom of religion at work protect?

It protects two things: the freedom to hold a belief and the freedom to act on it. At work, the second part matters most, because it covers prayer, fasting, rest days, dietary rules, religious dress and refusing certain acts on grounds of conscience.

You do not leave that right at the office door. The employment relationship is simply the setting in which it must be balanced against the interests of the business.

The right is not unlimited. Article 9(2) ECHR allows restrictions that are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society. Between a private employer and an employee, that balancing mainly runs through the AWGB and the duty to act as a good employer (goed werkgeverschap) in Article 7:611 of the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek, BW).

In practice, courts almost never ask whether a religious practice is genuine or theologically required, because they do not judge doctrine. They ask a narrower question that is much harder to answer afterwards: was the restriction necessary, and did the employer first consider a workable alternative?

The situations that cause friction are familiar. Some examples:

• a Muslim employee whose prayer times fall within the working day;
• a Christian who wants Good Friday off in a sector where it is an ordinary working day;
• a Jewish employee who cannot work from sunset on Friday;
• a Sikh who wears a turban under a safety helmet.

None of these is unusual in a Dutch workforce, and none has one answer that fits every employer. The law prescribes a method, not an outcome.

Which laws govern religion at work?

The core rules are Article 6 of the Constitution, Article 9 ECHR, EU Directive 2000/78/EC and the AWGB. Two Dutch statutes on working time do much of the practical work.

Article 6 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and belief. Article 9 ECHR gives the same guarantee at European level, and you can rely on it directly before a Dutch court. At EU level, Council Directive 2000/78/EC sets a general framework for equal treatment in employment and expressly covers religion and belief. Dutch law implements it through the AWGB.

What does the Equal Treatment Act say?

Article 5 AWGB is the key provision for employment. It prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion in:

• advertising a vacancy and in recruitment and selection;
• entering into and ending an employment contract;
• terms and conditions of employment;
• training and promotion.

Article 1 AWGB defines direct and indirect discrimination. Article 2 sets out when indirect discrimination can be objectively justified. Article 8a prohibits disadvantaging anyone because they invoked the Act or helped someone who did. That last provision protects an employee who complains from retaliation. It is often the strongest card of an employee whose position deteriorates right after raising the issue.

Which working-time rules matter?

Article 2 of the Flexible Working Act (Wet flexibel werken, Wfw) gives an employee with at least 26 weeks of service the right to request a change in working hours, working times or place of work. Article 4:1a of the Working Hours Act (Arbeidstijdenwet) requires an employer, when setting work and rest patterns, to take the employee’s personal circumstances into account as far as can reasonably be required.

Religious obligations fall squarely within that wording. That is why a rigid roster is a weaker defence than employers often assume.

Where does the AWGB not apply?

The Act has limits. Article 3 AWGB places relationships within religious denominations, their independent parts and the spiritual ministry outside its scope. Article 5 AWGB also allows organisations founded on a religious or political basis to set requirements that are genuinely necessary in light of those founding principles.

Public sector employers work within the same equal treatment framework. They also operate under the standards of the Civil Servants Act 2017 (Ambtenarenwet 2017), which is where older case law on the neutrality of officials in public-facing roles comes from.

What is the difference between direct and indirect religious discrimination?

Direct discrimination is treatment expressly based on religion and cannot be justified. Indirect discrimination is a neutral rule that hits one religious group harder, and it is only lawful if the employer can justify it objectively.

When is there direct discrimination?

Direct discrimination means, for example, rejecting an applicant because she is Muslim or dismissing an employee because he wears a kippah. Under the AWGB, direct discrimination cannot be objectively justified. Only the narrow statutory exceptions apply. An appeal to house style, neutrality, business ethics or what customers supposedly prefer does not save it.

When is indirect discrimination allowed?

Indirect discrimination is the more common and more difficult problem. It arises where a rule that says nothing about religion still hits one religious group far harder than others. Examples are a general ban on head coverings, a requirement that all staff be available on Saturdays, or a ban on face-covering clothing in client-facing roles. Such a rule is only allowed if all three conditions below are met at the same time:

• the measure pursues a legitimate aim, such as safety, hygiene or a genuine and decisive occupational requirement;
• the measure is appropriate to achieve that aim;
• the measure is necessary and proportionate: no less restrictive alternative would achieve the same result.

The conditions are cumulative. If the aim is legitimate but a less intrusive alternative was available, the rule is still unlawful. In practice the third condition decides most cases.

What has the EU Court of Justice said about neutrality policies?

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) takes the same approach to workplace neutrality. In Achbita (C-157/15) it accepted that an internal rule banning all visible political, philosophical and religious signs may pursue a legitimate aim. But that is only so if the rule is applied generally and without distinction, and if the employer considered offering the employee a post without visual contact with customers.

In WABE and MH Müller Handel (C-804/18 and C-341/19), the CJEU added that the employer must show a genuine need for such a policy and pursue it consistently and systematically. A rule that in practice only reaches the headscarf is not a neutrality policy at all. It is direct discrimination in a different wrapper.

Can your employer refuse prayer during working hours?

There is no legal duty to grant prayer breaks, but your employer must assess the request on its merits and be able to justify a refusal. Employers who simply say no tend to lose these cases.

A judgment of the subdistrict court of Noord-Holland (Zaanstad) of 26 September 2025 shows how this works (ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:11085). A service technician at a fire safety company was dismissed during his probationary period, only days after starting. The termination letter itself referred to his wish to pray once or twice a day in a separate space at client locations, and to his religious objection to working at pig farms.

A probationary dismissal normally needs no reason, but it may not be based on a prohibited ground. The court found direct discrimination on grounds of religion, which the employer had not rebutted. It awarded compensation for the irregular termination (gefixeerde schadevergoeding), the transition payment (transitievergoeding) and fair compensation (billijke vergoeding) of EUR 15,000 gross.

The practical lesson is about method. A prayer takes a few minutes and can often fit into an existing break. The question a court puts to the employer is not whether it had to say yes, but whether it genuinely examined the request:

• Was an unused meeting room available?
• Could break times be moved by a quarter of an hour?
• Did other employees get the same flexibility for non-religious reasons, such as a school run or a physiotherapy appointment?

An employer that can answer these questions from records made at the time is in a strong position. An employer that reconstructs its reasoning after receiving a lawyer’s letter is not: courts give little weight to internal notes drawn up after the dispute began.

A prayer room follows the same logic. No employer must build or permanently designate one. But if a suitable room stands empty and the request is still refused, the refusal starts to look like a decision about the employee’s religion rather than about the business. That is exactly the impression that shifts the burden of proof.

Can you change your working hours during Ramadan?

Yes, you can ask. The route is Article 2 of the Flexible Working Act, and your employer must grant a request to change working hours or times unless serious business or service interests stand in the way.

An employee who fasts may, for example, ask to start and finish earlier, shorten the lunch break or swap shifts. The conditions are:

• you have been employed for at least 26 weeks on the intended start date;
• you make the request in writing at least two months in advance;
• your employer has 10 or more employees. Smaller employers fall outside Article 2 Wfw, but must still have some arrangement for flexible working.

A request to change working hours or working times must be granted unless serious business or service interests (zwaarwegende bedrijfs- of dienstbelangen) prevent it. Think of demonstrable safety problems, a roster that genuinely cannot be filled, or serious financial or organisational consequences.

Two features of the Act are easy to overlook and decisive in practice. First, the employer must decide in writing. If it has not decided one month before the intended start date, the change takes effect as requested. Silence costs the employer the point. Second, a refusal must be reasoned. A general reference to operational needs, without looking at alternatives, does not meet the standard.

Where the reason behind the request is religious, a defective refusal is not only a breach of the Wfw. It may also be indirect discrimination under the AWGB, with considerably more expensive remedies attached.

May an employer intervene if a fasting employee seems less alert?

Only on the basis of a concrete, documented risk, assessed for the individual. A general assumption that people who fast perform worse is not defensible.

The duty of care under the Working Conditions Act (Arbeidsomstandighedenwet) is real. Temporarily changing duties can be defensible where there is a concrete risk, such as operating heavy machinery in high summer temperatures. A blanket measure for everyone observing Ramadan is not. The assessment must be individual, based on evidence and recorded, and it should be discussed with the employee rather than imposed.

Do you have a right to leave on religious holidays?

No, not beyond the recognised Dutch public holidays. You apply for ordinary holiday leave, and your employer can only refuse on serious grounds raised in writing within two weeks.

Eid al-Fitr, Yom Kippur, Diwali and Orthodox Christmas are, legally speaking, ordinary working days. If you want the day off, you apply for holiday leave in the normal way under Article 7:638 BW.

That provision gives the employer only limited room to refuse. The employer sets your holiday in line with your wishes, unless serious reasons (gewichtige redenen) stand in the way. It must raise those reasons in writing within two weeks of your written request. If it does not object in time, the holiday is fixed as requested. Employers who leave a request in an inbox during a busy fortnight regularly discover this rule too late.

Beyond the leave rules, consistency does the real work. An employer that routinely allows a long weekend but refuses a single day for a religious festival, without any difference in operational impact, is producing exactly the evidence an employee needs to establish a presumption of discrimination.

Also check the collective labour agreement (cao) before treating the statutory position as the full answer. Many contain clauses on religious holidays or allow public holidays to be exchanged for days that matter to the individual employee.

Can an employer ban a headscarf, kippah, cross or turban?

Only in a narrow band of situations: genuine safety or hygiene requirements, or a general neutrality policy that meets the conditions of the EU Court of Justice. Corporate image alone is a weak aim, and customer preference is not a legitimate aim at all.

Wearing a headscarf, kippah, cross or turban is protected as an expression of religion. A ban is therefore either direct discrimination, where it targets particular religions, or indirect discrimination that needs objective justification. Restrictions can survive in cases such as:

• safety: loose fabric near moving machinery, or headwear that prevents a helmet from fitting;
• hygiene rules in food processing and healthcare;
• a general neutrality policy that meets the conditions set in Achbita and WABE.

What about refusing to shake hands?

Refusing to shake hands sits at the sharpest edge of this subject. Two Dutch decisions show how much depends on the context.

In a judgment of 28 October 2025 (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:19487), the subdistrict court of The Hague dealt with an IT service desk employee who had been placed at the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA). On his second working day he declined, on religious grounds, to shake hands with a female team leader. He was dismissed during his probationary period, later officially for not meeting expectations. The court found that the dismissal rested on his religion. The employer could not show that shaking hands was necessary for a role that mostly involved remote IT work. The court awarded compensation of EUR 34,000 gross plus legal costs.

Compare the decision of the Central Appeals Tribunal (Centrale Raad van Beroep, CRvB) of 7 May 2009 (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2009:BI2440). A teacher had announced that, for religious reasons, she would not shake hands with male colleagues. Her suspension and dismissal were upheld. In that school setting, a uniform way of greeting was accepted as appropriate and necessary to prevent division and to provide clarity in a diverse school community.

The same practice, opposite outcomes. The difference lies in the role, the setting and the quality of the employer’s reasoning, not in the belief.

Who has to prove what?

Under Article 10 AWGB, you only need to present facts from which discrimination may be presumed. Your employer must then prove that it did not discriminate, or that the measure was objectively justified.

Facts that can support a presumption include:

• a colleague in a comparable position who was treated differently;
• a complete lack of reasoning from the employer;
• a dismissal shortly after a religious request;
• a policy applied inconsistently.

Full proof is not needed at that stage. If the court accepts that the facts raise a presumption, the burden shifts to the employer.

What fails at that second stage is predictable. A general appeal to house style, neutrality or assumed customer preference is not enough. Nor is a policy that exists only on paper, or one applied to a headscarf but never to a cross. Documents created after the dispute arose carry little weight, because their purpose is obvious. Evidence that does work often runs the other way: an employee can rely on comparisons or statistics. Where members of one religious group are systematically refused what others are granted, the presumption is easily established.

What does a breach cost an employer?

A discriminatory dismissal can be annulled, or the court can award fair compensation on top of the transition payment. Non-material damage and legal costs can follow, and a ruling of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights can cause reputational damage.

Where a dismissal is tainted by discrimination and the employer cannot rebut the presumption, the subdistrict court (kantonrechter) can annul the notice. If the employee prefers not to return, it can award fair compensation under Article 7:681 BW instead. Fair compensation then comes on top of the transition payment under Article 7:673 BW and, where the notice period was not observed, compensation for irregular termination.

Non-material damage can be claimed under Article 6:106 BW where the discrimination has harmed the employee as a person. A costs order follows. A published ruling of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (College voor de Rechten van de Mens) often does more reputational damage than the money. Our separate article on religious discrimination in the workplace covers the compensation framework in more detail.

Courts treat the systematic refusal of religious accommodation, a dismissal closely following a religious request, and selectively applied dress rules as seriously culpable conduct by the employer. That finding is what pushes fair compensation up. There is no tariff. The amount is set case by case, based on length of service, loss of income, the employee’s prospects on the labour market and the seriousness of the employer’s conduct.

What can you do as an employee?

Act quickly and in writing. Start with an internal complaint; you can then ask the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights for a ruling or go to court, keeping in mind the two-month deadline after dismissal.

The first step is a written internal complaint to your employer or the internal complaints committee. It creates a record, gives the employer a chance to correct course, and its absence is sometimes held against an employee later. Article 8a AWGB protects you from being disadvantaged for taking this step.

You can ask the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights for a ruling free of charge and without a lawyer. Its rulings are not legally binding, but they are reasoned and authoritative, and courts regularly rely on them. If you want the practice corrected rather than money, this route often achieves more than litigation.

If the situation is urgent, for example a suspension or sudden removal from the roster, you can ask the preliminary relief judge for interim measures in summary proceedings (kort geding) under Article 254 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, Rv). For a final ruling you go to the subdistrict court.

Timing is critical. A request to annul a dismissal or to obtain fair compensation must be filed within two months after the employment contract ended (Article 7:686a(4)(a) BW). That period cannot be extended. It is the most common reason why a strong discrimination claim is never heard.

You can also obtain evidence held by your employer. Since 1 January 2025, the right to inspect documents held by the other party is governed by Articles 194 and following Rv, which replaced the former Article 843a Rv. If you can identify specific documents and have a legitimate interest in seeing them, you can ask the court to order disclosure, if necessary backed by a penalty payment. Think of the internal note recording the decision, the correspondence about your request or the policy as it stood at the time.

How can employers reduce the risk?

Most disputes in this field are lost on process, not on principle. The good news is that the risk is largely within the employer’s control.

• Write the policy down in advance. Set out your approach to religious expression, prayer facilities, dress and leave before a request arrives, so decisions are measured against a standard rather than improvised.
• Assess each request individually. Record the assessment at the time, including the alternatives you considered and why you rejected them.
• Be consistent. Apply the policy equally across religions and in line with how you handle comparable non-religious requests. The colleague who was allowed to leave early is the comparison an employee will put before the court.
• Train managers. Team leaders make most of these decisions on the spot. They need to know that a religious request is not an ordinary scheduling matter and that a flat refusal is never safe.
• Add an escalation rule. Require any refusal of a religious request to be signed off at a higher level and reasoned. This removes most of the exposure at very little cost.

Public sector employers work within the same framework. The neutrality argument can carry more weight in roles with direct public contact or, as the 2009 CRvB decision shows, where a uniform way of dealing with people is part of the job. That is not a licence to impose neutrality across a whole organisation. A rule adopted for the service counter cannot simply be extended to the back office. An employer that does so will be asked why the same interest applies to an employee no member of the public ever sees.

In summary

• Freedom of religion at work is protected by Article 6 of the Constitution, Article 9 ECHR and the AWGB; direct discrimination on grounds of religion cannot be justified.
• A neutral rule that hits one religious group harder is only lawful if it has a legitimate aim and is appropriate and necessary.
• There is no right to a prayer break, prayer room or religious holiday, but every request must be assessed individually and a refusal must be reasoned.
• Requests to change working hours go through the Flexible Working Act; holiday requests through Article 7:638 BW, with a two-week deadline for the employer to object.
• Once you present facts suggesting discrimination, your employer must prove otherwise. After a dismissal you have two months to go to court.

Frequently asked questions

How can we help with religion in the workplace?

Case law on freedom of religion at work keeps developing, and the margin between a defensible restriction and prohibited discrimination is narrower than most employers expect. Law & More advises employers on drafting and applying policy on religious expression, prayer facilities, dress codes and leave. We assist employees who are refused an accommodation or dismissed after a religious request, including before the subdistrict court and the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights.

Our employment lawyers work from Eindhoven and Amsterdam. Unsure where you stand? Tell us about your situation. We will let you know your options within one working day.

How Law & More can help you with this is explained on our employment lawyer page.